Author
Topic: 5D3 for landscapes (Read 29592 times)

This is my very first attempt at landscape photography, so please, any comments, criticisms, suggestions would be very appreciated. Seriously, if you hate it or love it, let me know! These were all taken at Mt. St. Helens

When using HDR, you have to be really careful with how a scene is presented. Landscapes really need a full dynamic range, including shadows. For me, the shadow areas are lacking, making it look unreal. This is another problem with HDR, I find that HDR photos look too surreal. That's fine if it is the look you're looking for, but it isn't something that is desirable in traditional landscape photogprahy. Also, when shooting water, it usually looks better to have some texture in rivers and waterfalls, although the misty look works well for coastal scenes. The textures help to emphasise the movement. Again, this is where shadows are important, to show the definition. Another effect of the HDR, combined with the ND filter is the overexposed water, turning it bright white with blown highlights. The HDR has also created haloes in the first image in the sky and the sky has also become overexposed. Personally, I would reduce the exposure overall by around one stop to give some shadows and recover the detail in the sky. Use of grad filters would also help to even up the exposure to bring everything back in range. As to composition, I'm not sure that the extreme wide angle works. The distortion has made it difficuilt to get a sense of reference to level the river and in the case of some of the images, there isn't a strong element to focus on when viewing. It works ok in the first one, but often with rivers, you need a strong diagonal to act as a leading line and the combination of wideangle and distortion has diluted that. Again, the texture of the flowing water would help here to draw the eye in. Many landscape photographers are used to getting wet feet or wear waders, as that way, they can compose on the diagonal much more easily. You do have to be careful not to end up floating down the river though. What I do like is the the texture of the leaves and trees, so if you can preserve that but making it look more natural, then it will improve the images greatly.

When using HDR, you have to be really careful with how a scene is presented. Landscapes really need a full dynamic range, including shadows. For me, the shadow areas are lacking, making it look unreal. This is another problem with HDR, I find that HDR photos look too surreal. That's fine if it is the look you're looking for, but it isn't something that is desirable in traditional landscape photogprahy. Also, when shooting water, it usually looks better to have some texture in rivers and waterfalls, although the misty look works well for coastal scenes. The textures help to emphasise the movement. Again, this is where shadows are important, to show the definition. Another effect of the HDR, combined with the ND filter is the overexposed water, turning it bright white with blown highlights. The HDR has also created haloes in the first image in the sky and the sky has also become overexposed. Personally, I would reduce the exposure overall by around one stop to give some shadows and recover the detail in the sky. Use of grad filters would also help to even up the exposure to bring everything back in range. As to composition, I'm not sure that the extreme wide angle works. The distortion has made it difficuilt to get a sense of reference to level the river and in the case of some of the images, there isn't a strong element to focus on when viewing. It works ok in the first one, but often with rivers, you need a strong diagonal to act as a leading line and the combination of wideangle and distortion has diluted that. Again, the texture of the flowing water would help here to draw the eye in. Many landscape photographers are used to getting wet feet or wear waders, as that way, they can compose on the diagonal much more easily. You do have to be careful not to end up floating down the river though. What I do like is the the texture of the leaves and trees, so if you can preserve that but making it look more natural, then it will improve the images greatly.

Thanks! I'll certainly take your advice. Im a portrait photographer, so this landscape thing is totally new to me! Its amazing how many little details there are too keep in mind with something like that. I would have loved to go out into the middle of the river, but i wasn't that well equipped.

Yeah. Tripod, 5d3, 24 1.4 L II, 50 1.4, and a Sigma 15mm fisheye. I used a B+W 10 stop ND filter and got my exposures in the 60-100 second range. Cable release as well. Shot on live view.

Well, live view had three advantages in this case. One, I had my camera on a tripod out in the water so I couldnt get my eye up to the viewfinder, two- it let me see past the 10 stop nd filter that made the videwfinder too dark to see past, and three, it keeps the mirror up to reduce vibrations and gives a sharper image.

good jobI like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th of the bunch more than the 3rd but to echo some other comments, unless you're really going for the very flattened HDR look, I find it a bit too overdone for my tastes. I prefer when HDR methods are used to make all aspects of the scene more visible but still retain all their relative tonality.Keep at it and yes, don't be afraid to put your camera where you can make the best shot, just keep it dry and you safe.

canon rumors FORUM

Hi, the composition of the first 2 pics is OK. In the 3rd and 4th a resting point for the eye is missing and so the eye is wandering restlessly around in the pics. The distortion of the fisheye doesn't help at all here. In all pics the highlights of the water are out blown. For rivers and waterfalls an exposure between 1/6s and 10s would be enough for the flowing effect.

The HDR effect is too strong in all pics and it looks very artificial. Try to remember how you have seen the scene and edit the pics accordingly. If there isn't a very strong contrast ( bright, unfiltered sun + deep shadows), a single RAW file would be enough and can also be processed as a more natural looking HDR. In general bright, unfiltered sun at midday seldom works for a landscape shot because of the harsh light and too deep shadows. Even grad nd filters don't help here. Especially within a forest with most parts of the scene in partial or full shadow the few high lights of the sun can ruin a pic, if they are too strong, because they are really hard to recover in post processing. So an overcast day or even better some fog would help a lot.